so that striking or reviling any part of a human being’s body would be absolutely impermissible, even if he were an unbeliever or an evildoer. That this is utterly untenable is self-evident on both rational and religious grounds. If, however, this did not entail a prohibition, striking the face would not be prohibited, contrary to the explicit text and consensus.

Fourth, the hadith, “Let none of you say, ‘May Allah make your face ugly, and the face of anyone whose face resembles yours,’ for Allah created Adam in His image,” prohibits reviling the face and whatever resembles it because Allah created Adam in His image. If it were only the soul that was created in that image, this resemblance would not hold, for Allah would resemble not the human face, but only the human soul.

Fifth, this forbidden reviling could not properly be directed at the face, since the reason given does not apply to it.

Sixth, if that were intended, it would have been said: “Do not revile the soul,” or “Do not insult it,” or something similar.

Seventh, on this supposition, there would be no reason to single out the face for the prohibition against reviling it. Rather, it would be necessary to prohibit reviling all